Is there a regulation on life ban? I guess the question here is one of process. LA will want to negotiate and use whatever leverage he has. USADA and others will most likely want to crucify him in some ways.

Contador and Fignon are treated like innocentes....LA is tarred evil. It's naive BS. Let's face it, sour grapes about the money LA made. The sport was rotten and I have no doubt cheating is still pervasive.

winstonw wrote:It was cheats like Fignon that forced younger riders (like LA) to CHEAT. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-3 ... -says.html"Fignon confessed to taking amphetamines and cortisone as a rider in his autobiography, “We Were Young and Carefree,” France 2 said on its website, adding he didn’t make a link with the banned drugs and his cancer."Contador and Fignon are treated like innocentes....LA is tarred evil. It's naive BS. Let's face it, sour grapes about the money LA made. The sport was rotten and I have no doubt cheating is still pervasive.

It's the "Bash Lance" media circus right now. And I agree, LA's lack of guilt and his sense of "level playing field" is quite understandable when interpreted in the context of the time. Although it doesn't make LA right, it does explain a lot. At the same time, I wouldn't nail Fignon either as he was also a product of the doping culture that was prevalent within the sport (and society) at the time. The big crime LA and Johan Bruyneel committed was that they took it to a higher level and soundly beat the Euro Pros at their game and turned the table on their dominance. In the process, they made an enormous load of money and Lance Inc. Not too different to how so many US multi-national corporations raided Europe and other economies worldwide. It has always been a dirty game.

Every time that guy's name is typed is another Google hit for him.More fame for him.The interview was just a way to rally that fame.The confession just another thing for him to add to his speaking tours.

Mulger bill wrote:Well put Sumgy, I will refrain from mentioning the name Rancid Pharmstrong again

Exactly.And seriously how many threads do we need on this site and FB chronicling every little thing that if we actually gave a toss we could watch with that other useless fameseeker on TV.2 of the most fame driven egocentrics in the world on one show.

sogood wrote:Is there a regulation on life ban? I guess the question here is one of process. LA will want to negotiate and use whatever leverage he has. USADA and others will most likely want to crucify him in some ways.

Yes I too am curious of the "process" he used to inject EPO, etc. and get away with it for so long. Unfortunately he didn't tell us in the OW interview so hopefully he confesses all to USADA. Your reference to crucify is kind of amusing given Lance is the cancer Jesus.

biker jk wrote:Yes I too am curious of the "process" he used to inject EPO, etc. and get away with it for so long. Unfortunately he didn't tell us in the OW interview so hopefully he confesses all to USADA. Your reference to crucify is kind of amusing given Lance is the cancer Jesus.

I think we all know that "process". It's micro-dosing with a rigorous system that managed the risks of getting caught. From what I've read, Johan Bruyneel is one smart cookie, a tier or two above in intellect to those rough as guts fellow managers. As I suggested, they basically applied the techniques of a US multi-national to the sporting field and beat the system. Just like the movie "The Brain" (1969). Yes, there are many amusing snippets that can come out of this whole saga.

ozzymac wrote:As I posted in other threads, can someone please explain to me the difference between Armstrong and all the other riders who cheated?

He lied longer than all others and managed to sustain it. It made everyone else looked very very stupid. As such, people will subjectively react more severely than usual, let alone the media beat up. All quite explainable.

ozzymac wrote:As I posted in other threads, can someone please explain to me the difference between Armstrong and all the other riders who cheated?

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

Cheating in the TdF began from day one in 1903. However, in terms of performance enhancing drugs the birth of EPO allowed donkeys to be turned into racehorses. This wasn't the case with PEDs prior to the EPO era. Armstrong pre-EPO was an average rider. He took EPO use to a new level, paid the best doping doctor Ferrari a million dollars per year and bribed the UCI to not test positive. So it wasn't a level playing field. Armstrong was the king of dopers and the other riders were serfs.

biker jk wrote:Cheating in the TdF began from day one in 1903. However, in terms of performance enhancing drugs the birth of EPO allowed donkeys to be turned into racehorses. This wasn't the case with PEDs prior to the EPO era. Armstrong pre-EPO was an average rider. He took EPO use to a new level, paid the best doping doctor Ferrari a million dollars per year and bribed the UCI to not test positive. So it wasn't a level playing field. Armstrong was the king of dopers and the other riders were serfs.

Let's not give him credit where he is not due. LA did not discover EPO nor was he so knowledgeable to know how to effectively use the substance and dodge the barriers. Rogue doctors and physiologists worked out the regime and he and other members of his team worked out the mechanism to execute and out last everyone else in the field. Also need to recognise that his teams (US Postal and Discovery) weren't the only teams that used EPO through that period of time. And let's not over glorify EPO either. Steroids and blood transfusions also gave significant edges in these long endurance races. It's too easy for people to blame everything on LA and EPO. He played a role, but he is not everything that's out there.

Last edited by sogood on Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sumgy wrote:Not forgetting he has managed to lie past the 5 year Statute of Limitations for most Local and Federal US courts.

Standard legal and accounting risk mitigating technique. Any half competent lawyer or accountant would have informed him of that. The fact that he succeeded is what made so many people even more angry.

I think he should be allowed to compete after serving a ban, but I'd like to see something like "if you actually win the ny marathon, then you won't be recognized as the winner". Seriously...he's getting on so I doubt he'd trouble the serious race contenders, maybe the age groupers, so put a "can't win" in place. Stopping someone run a marathon etc - which tend to be personal goals at this age - just because it's sanctioned is stupid. Everyone loves David miller now don't they? Both denied it until caught, just one was more verbal in their denials and took longer to get caught.

Ban him from team races for life so he can't help someone win.

I'd still go to see him compete at anything and would welcome riding with him. I'd take the opportunity for a chat though and ask a few questions. At the end of the day, you could shove as many performance I handing doo-dads in me and I'd still be mediocre at best!!

Whats short?... short to me is 6 months like all the others got. 2-4 years would be fine by me... and lifetime ban on appearance fees.Being someone who lives to compete a lifetime ban is a bit much... it's only sport, you get a lot less for much more serious crimes.